COMMENTARY

We’ll See If Gingrich Sustains The Surge

REPUBLICANS ARE VIEWED AS HAVING AN ADVANTAGE IN ENTHUSIASM, BUT CAN THEY KEEP IT GOING?

Much has been made of the endorsement this week by the Union Leader, New Hampshire’s largest newspaper, of Newt Gingrich’s candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination.

An obvious question, much bandied about these days, is how did Gingrich suddenly come to be viewed as a major contender when few had previously taken his candidacy seriously?

But before we get to that, all the buzz about the New Hampshire newspaper’s endorsement is a reminder of how disproportionately important certain states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, are in this process. The actual number of primary/caucus voters in these states is minuscule in national terms and hardly representative. Many states, including Arkansas, are essentially shut out of the nominating process.

Now what about the significance of the Union Leader’s endorsement?

What we have here is a right-wing newspaper in a small state, with a daily circulation of less than 50,000 (64,000 Sundays).

The newspaper first gained major attention in1972 when it published the “Canuck letter,” claiming Ed Muskie, then the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, made disparaging remarks about the French-American population in New England. The Union Leader also published editorials attacking the character of Muskie’s wife. This barrage of criticism led Muskie to make emotional remarks defending his wife in a press conference outside the newspaper office in the midst of a snow storm.

Journalists reported Muskie had tears streaming down his face. Muskie insisted it was really melting snowflakes. However, the perception was that Muskie had melted down and his campaign never recovered.

Elections can turn on such seemingly small events. It is entirely possible that Richard Nixon would have won re-election in 1972 regardless, as he did ineventually trouncing George McGovern. However, as part of the Watergate investigation the following year, it was determined that the “Canuck letter” was a forged document, part of the dirty-tricks campaign orchestrated by the Nixon campaign.

Clearly, the Union Leader had some impact in 1972, but it has a relatively weak record of backing winning candidates. It did support John McCain for the GOP nomination four years ago, and Pat Buchanan, who won the state’s primary in1996. But it has also backed primary losers such as Pete DuPont (1988) and Steve Forbes (2000)

So the paper’s endorsement hardly dooms Mitt Romney to defeat in New Hampshire’s primary, and polls have shown him well ahead there.

However, it keeps alive, as does Gingrich’s rise in the polls nationally, the “anyone but Mitt” sentiment among Republicans. We’ve witnessed a phalanx of hopefuls rise and fall or in Gingrich’s case fall and rise as the anti-Mitt.

In its endorsement editorial, the Union Leader suggested the reason for uncertainty about these GOP candidates is because media attention “has been focused on fluff, silliness and each candidate’s minor miscues.” No doubt about fluff and silliness, but those miscues haven’t all been minor, and haven’t all been generated by the media. In some cases candidates have displayed a woeful lack of knowledge about important issues.

Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain have all had their moments under the spotlight, but faded under closer scrutiny, though they may be hoping, like Gingrich, that they will get a second look.

After all, it would be hard to find a major political figure who carries more personal and political baggage that Gingrich.

Probably no individual is more responsible for contributing to the polarized atmosphere that pervades Congress. He has a knack for off-the-wall, over-the-top tirades and a tendency to self-destruct. He had ethical issues in Congress and in his post-Congress period built a lucrative line-up of ventures. His dealings included a $1.8-million consultingfee from Freddie Mac, the government-backed firm conservatives blame for creating the housing crisis.

Gingrich said he was paid for his expertise as an historian, not because of his Capitol Hill connections.

Apparently, the Union Leader would consider these as minor miscues.

By all normal standards of political viability, Gingrich would not be a serious challenger. Nonetheless, some see him as a visionary who has been through the political wars and could capitalize on anti-Romney sentiment so strong among many conservatives.

It is by no means certain that Gingrich can sustain this surge. But suppose Romney might stumble, experiencing his own Muskie moment, or something akin to his father’s dooming comment in 1968 that he had been brainwashed by the generals in Vietnam.

Republicans are seen as having an advantage in enthusiasm and passion heading into 2012. But it is not yet clear who can mobilize and sustain that intensity.

HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR.

Opinion, Pages 17 on 12/04/2011

Upcoming Events